Ok, for the sake of completeness. To qualify as an appropriate pupillage for call to the Bar, the student has to cover a requisite number of legal areas. Since defamation is, as part of the law of Tort, one of the bedrocks of the common law, then virtually all pupils will have some experience of it. Indeed they must because it forms part of the Civil litigation papers ( My principal when I was a pupil was involved in a number of these so I DO have experience)
Moreover, any UK law degree- if it is to 'qualify' for professional purposes must cover certain foundational subjects and one of these is Tort ( inc defamation)
At a professional level, defamation actions are quite rare in England and Wales- not least because of cost and the court will almost certainly ask any claimant for regular and repeated proof that he can continue to meet his legal costs
Hope this information is helpful
What I certainly don't want to do is to enter into a debate on this in any intemperate manner. You have an view and so do I
As I said, I really would like to leave it at that
Thanks
GLLHG
Thank you, you inadvertently confirmed my suspicion: You think that anything bad said about something (remember, this began as a talk about cars) is defamation, and anything bad said about a person is defamation, that there is no difference with regards to context, nor intent of what is said.
I'm still waiting for what branch of law you actually work(-ed) in. It shouldn't be difficult for you to share this information after you tried the "I'm an authority because I'm a lawyer" method.
And as for the request to leave it, as G and the other bloke has reached a "gentleman agreement", I have to say, I wasn't the one playing into the hands of a tosser who apparently threatened litigation, and found it necessary to publish what reads like a joint press release. It was about a freaking car.
